Every big city newspaper has at least one: The angry black columnist who blames white people for all their misfortune. There is Cynthia Tucker of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Bob Herbert of the New York Times, and Mary Mitchell of The Chicago Sun-Times.

In the October 7th Chicago Sun-Times, Black Nationalist columnist Mary Mitchell argued that Sarah Palin should be censured for inciting a dangerous mob mentality of her supporters against unfavorable media attention. She stated, "according to a published report in the Washington Post, Palin supporters turned on the press after she blamed the media for her inarticulate reviews."

Mitchell went on to write, "Palin’s pit-bull mentality has not only set a negative tone, but a dangerous one. She should be censured."

It is hypocritical for Mitchell, of all people, to complain about anyone setting a negative or dangerous tone. In her August 31st, 2007 column, Mitchell urged readers to donate money to the Jena 6. In an additional column on the crime, she went on to trivialize the extent of the victim's injuries in an attempt to belittle the crime itself. What kind of "tone" is set when an adult with her own column defends six thugs who beat an innocent high school student unconscious?

However, this is standard procedure for Mitchell. To her, blacks can do no wrong. Excuses are made when fellow blacks are accused of misconduct. In this case, a noose hung from a tree by three individuals warrants the beating of an innocent white student.

Mitchell rarely approves of white individuals. Agreement occurs only when one ridicules other whites either specifically or in general. For example, she spoke highly of Chicago Catholic priest Father Phleger for mocking Hillary Clinton after her crying incident in the days following the Iowa caucuses and lead-up to the New Hampshire primary. According to Phleger, "white privilege" caused Clinton's denial concerning a potential loss to Barack Obama in the Democratic primary. Not surprisingly, this statement brought the predominantly black congregation to its feet.

"White privilege," as described by Phleger, is a concept discussed in many of Mitchell's columns. Mitchell likes to accuse whites of taking advantage of society's benefits. She fails to acknowledge that black privilege within the media allowed her to obtain, and continue to maintain, her career.

Plenty of pro-black columnists exist. However, where exactly are pro-white columns within "mainstream" publications? All such writers were purged from their positions over a decade ago. The late Sam Francis was fired from The Washington Times in 1995 after years of accurately describing "the war against the white race." Prior to Francis, Joe Sobran was fired from National Review (which is marketed as a conservative publication) by William F. Buckley after eloquently describing the fallacy which exists ideologically between traditional conservative philosophy and U.S. support for Israel. In the media, "black privilege" runs rampant while "white privilege" just doesn't exist.

The word censure is defined as a "strong or vehement expression of disapproval" or "an official reprimand." How then, should Mitchell be reprimanded for glorifying six criminals guilty of committing a violent beating while trivializing the extent of the victim’s injuries?

Inciting anger and hatred is an obvious element of nearly every Mary Mitchell column. Her articles exemplify the “pit-bull mentality” and exhibit a "dangerous tone." Ironically, she criticized Palin for displaying those same characteristics. If a reprimand was in order for anyone guilty of such, she would have been out of a job long ago.